Sign in to follow this  
papyrusbeetle

did we just wake up in Nazi Germany? KEVIN SPACEY blacklisted!!!!!

109 posts in this topic

There is a very obscure film that Edward G. Robinson did, I think, called STRANGE VACATION.

he goes on a fishing trip in the mountains, and when he returns to his town, it's been taken over (along with the rest of the USA) by the Communists.

 

Has this just happened to the film industry?

Is this why KEVIN SPACEY has been "erased" from his new film, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, which I had really been wanting to see, and they have put in his place the WORST ACTOR ON EARTH (christopher plummer) who isn't even American?

(If you doubt he is the worst actor that ever lived, try watching MURDER BY DECREE (1979) without throwing up.)

 

What is going on?

Spacey "assaulted" a 18 year old  Man sitting at a bar next to him on Martha's Vineyard.

The 18 year old (even if he was legally at a bar, at that age) could have simply PUNCHED Spacey in the mouth, or at least thrown his beer in his face.

because this guy was too much of a wimp to defend himself, does the whole world have to suffer?

Please stop this witch hunt!

 

MV5BZGMzZDFlZGUtMGZkYi00NzRiLWE0MTQtNjA5ZmVmMDZhZjA5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDkzNTM2ODg@__V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are at least 4 threads already going on this same subject, so you may want to look around to see what others have already said. I'll also point out that the allegation that you mention is only the latest of several allegations from multiple accusers both here and in the UK, including a few where the people Spacey targeted were underage.

As for the "Nazi Germany" reference, I'm not sure that tracks at all with this situation, but yes, his career (and life) seem to have been destroyed with frightening speed and without a single day in court, other than the court of public opinion. At another movie website I frequent, the commenters are taking bets on how long before we read that Spacey's dead, most likely from suicide. :(

 Sony had been talking of delaying All the Money in the World until next year, and even considered not releasing it at all or dumping it straight to video. The decision to try and salvage the movie by reshooting Spacey's role was reportedly made by director Ridley Scott himself, and not the studio suits. 

And calling Christopher Plummer the worst actor on Earth is a ludicrous stretch. I may not be a huge fan of his, but I don't think he's horrible either, and many many people love and respect him. And it's worth mentioning that Scott wanted Plummer for the role to begin with, but Sony wanted a bigger name. Spacey played his role under thick old age makeup, which Plummer will not need.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what Nazi Germany has to do with the blacklist, nor am I familiar with this latest allegation against Kevin Spacey. But his career may be in the dumper because of allegations involving minors, and, if those allegations are true, he deserves to be washed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

There are at least 4 threads already going on this same subject, so you may want to look around to see what others have already said. I'll also point out that the allegation that you mention is only the latest of several allegations from multiple accusers both here and in the UK, including a few where the people Spacey targeted were underage.

As for the "Nazi Germany" reference, I'm not sure that tracks at all with this situation, but yes, his career (and life) seem to have been destroyed with frightening speed and without a single day in court, other than the court of public opinion. At another movie website I frequent, the commenters are taking bets on how long before we read that Spacey's dead, most likely from suicide. :(

 Sony had been talking of delaying All the Money in the World until next year, and even considered not releasing it at all or dumping it straight to video. The decision to try and salvage the movie by reshooting Spacey's role was reportedly made by director Ridley Scott himself, and not the studio suits. 

And calling Christopher Plummer the worst actor on Earth is a ludicrous stretch. I may not be a huge fan of his, but I don't think he's horrible either, and many many people love and respect him. And it's worth mentioning that Scott wanted Plummer for the role to begin with, but Sony wanted a bigger name. Spacey played his role under thick old age makeup, which Plummer will not need.

and off Earth.:lol:

star7_2100617i.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

As for the "Nazi Germany" reference, I'm not sure that tracks at all with this situation, but yes, his career (and life) seem to have been destroyed with frightening speed and without a single day in court, other than the court of public opinion. At another movie website I frequent, the commenters are taking bets on how long before we read that Spacey's dead, most likely from suicide. :(

It's more the reflection that we're waiting for some other shoe to drop and feel we can't punish Harvey Weinstein ENOUGH yet--At least until this year's Weinstein-free Oscar nominations are announced, as "proof" that we've finally de-Harveyed Hollywood after two decades, and then we can all breathe a sigh of relief that some actual permanent effect was created.  So we're working out our frustrations banishing every other obnoxious sex-offender in the industry to work off our excess energy in the meantime.

Me, I've always felt that you couldn't punish Kevin Spacey enough either, at least for going on that one-man Bobby Darin tour after "Beyond the Sea", if not for his Lex Luthor in "Superman Returns".  And I still haven't seen "Se7en" yet.

3 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

And calling Christopher Plummer the worst actor on Earth is a ludicrous stretch. 

I used to think Plummer was "washed up" from all the cheap Canadian roles he'd taken in the 80's, until I watched his Oscar-nomination for "The Insider".  And then I went back and watched "Murder by Decree" again.  Dang, he's good.  :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP on this one-- we're living in a very reactionary time. Like making Spacey a fall guy will wash all of Hollywood's sins away. Hardly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, papyrusbeetle said:

There is a very obscure film that Edward G. Robinson did, I think, called STRANGE VACATION.

he goes on a fishing trip in the mountains, and when he returns to his town, it's been taken over (along with the rest of the USA) by the Communists.

 

Has this just happened to the film industry?

Is this why KEVIN SPACEY has been "erased" from his new film, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, which I had really been wanting to see, and they have put in his place the WORST ACTOR ON EARTH (christopher plummer) who isn't even American?

(If you doubt he is the worst actor that ever lived, try watching MURDER BY DECREE (1979) without throwing up.)

 

What is going on?

Spacey "assaulted" a 18 year old  Man sitting at a bar next to him on Martha's Vineyard.

The 18 year old (even if he was legally at a bar, at that age) could have simply PUNCHED Spacey in the mouth, or at least thrown his beer in his face.

because this guy was too much of a wimp to defend himself, does the whole world have to suffer?

Please stop this witch hunt!

 

MV5BZGMzZDFlZGUtMGZkYi00NzRiLWE0MTQtNjA5ZmVmMDZhZjA5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDkzNTM2ODg@__V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg

now I doan know...

 

christopher plummer was pretty good as commodus in fall of the roman empire.:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plummer deserved his Oscar win for Beginners. I think they are going overboard cutting Spacey out of the movie. They dont want to risk losing money on the film with all the bad headlines. It wouldnt keep me from seeing the movie if I wanted to. A certain irony in Plummer (who won an Oscar for playing a gay man) replacing a gay actor who seems to be getting blacklisted........

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, papyrusbeetle said:

There is a very obscure film that Edward G. Robinson did, I think, called STRANGE VACATION.

he goes on a fishing trip in the mountains, and when he returns to his town, it's been taken over (along with the rest of the USA) by the Communists.

 

Has this just happened to the film industry?

Is this why KEVIN SPACEY has been "erased" from his new film, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, which I had really been wanting to see, and they have put in his place the WORST ACTOR ON EARTH (christopher plummer) who isn't even American?

(If you doubt he is the worst actor that ever lived, try watching MURDER BY DECREE (1979) without throwing up.)

 

What is going on?

Spacey "assaulted" a 18 year old  Man sitting at a bar next to him on Martha's Vineyard.

The 18 year old (even if he was legally at a bar, at that age) could have simply PUNCHED Spacey in the mouth, or at least thrown his beer in his face.

because this guy was too much of a wimp to defend himself, does the whole world have to suffer?

Please stop this witch hunt!

 

MV5BZGMzZDFlZGUtMGZkYi00NzRiLWE0MTQtNjA5ZmVmMDZhZjA5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDkzNTM2ODg@__V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg

Spacey's accused of touching underage kids years ago. That's why they cut him out. People don't like having someone accused of being a **** rapist appear in their movies. It's bad for business. Also Hollywood doesn't have to cast actors you like and refusing to cast them doesn't make them "Nazis." Also not sure what that anecdote about the bar even has to do with anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gershwin fan said:

Also not sure what that anecdote about the bar even has to do with anything.

That was the latest accusation made against Spacey, that he groped an unwilling 18-year-old in a bar. That was in the news yesterday around the same time the role recasting news was, so the OP may have seen them mentioned in the same article without realizing that there had been multiple allegations made in the last few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Murder By Decree and Plummer is a wonderful Sherlock Holmes in it.

He was also brilliant in the film adaption of his stage hit, Barrymore. He plays the actor in his final year as a man full of loud cheering bravado trying to cover the pain. There's a moment in which Plummer lets the fascade slip. Lying on the floor he stares into the camera and says, words to the effect, "Oh God, God, I've let it all slip all away and I don't know how to get it back." He's like a man staring into the abyss.

A minute later, recomposed once again, he is Barrymore ranting out loud like the world is one big drunken party and he doesn't give a damn.

It's a stunning moment of vulnerability, Plummer giving us a brief glimpse of the frustration a rapidly aging Barrymore, who for years had prostituted himself with drunken self parodies for public consumption, must have felt in his quieter, more reflective, moments alone.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has apparently apologized so there must be something to apologize for.

12 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

People don't like having someone accused of being a **** rapist appear in their movies. It's bad for business.

It is bad for business. Not only those who will refuse to see a film he's in. But, those who will avoid the  film company itself thinking they must be okay with such behavior.

They had to cut him loose and quickly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GGGGerald said:

He has apparently apologized so there must be something to apologize for.

It is bad for business. Not only those who will refuse to see a film he's in. But, those who will avoid the  film company itself thinking they must be okay with such behavior.

They had to cut him loose and quickly. 

And especially Sony.  One cannot blame them for being nervous about ANYTHING that might abstractly harm their box office, even if they might happen to release a good film.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GGGGerald said:

He has apparently apologized so there must be something to apologize for.

It is bad for business. Not only those who will refuse to see a film he's in. But, those who will avoid the  film company itself thinking they must be okay with such behavior.

They had to cut him loose and quickly. 

And how many others should be cut out of films for things they've done wrong in the past?

It's time for people to set aside the hypocritical moral judgments. Just focus on the story, the characters, the acting. Leave what happens off-camera out of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

And how many others should be cut out of films for things they've done wrong in the past?

It's not the right precedent to set. There will only be more of these witch hunts. 

It's time for people to set aside the false moral judgments. Just focus on the story, the characters, the acting. Leave what happens off-camera out of it.

Everyone and anyone should be cut out if having them in a film will hurt the box office.   That is just business 101:   A business has to cut ties with those that impact their bottom line.    

While I agree with you in that I don't care what someone does outside of their job (it doesn't impact my viewing choices)  too many people do care (e.g. they would boycott the film or all products from the company) and therefore a business has to take action.     

   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Everyone and anyone should be cut out if having them in a film will hurt the box office.   That is just business 101:   A business has to cut ties with those that impact their bottom line.    

While I agree with you in that I don't care what someone does outside of their job (it doesn't impact my viewing choices)  too many people do care (e.g. they would boycott the film or all products from the company) and therefore a business has to take action.      

Thanks for a sensible answer. In my opinion it's for the actor's family, coworkers and lawyers to worry about. In this case, he'd already completed the scenes so cutting him out and caving in to outside pressure is not a good business precedent to set. How long before groups pressure a studio to cut someone else out of a film about some other unpopular action?

If he'd only just been cast or had only barely started filming, that would be different. But in this case, the job was already finished. It's like catering to a mob mentality (off with his head!) and using "business" as a euphemism to enact old-fashioned spite. Plus, if earlier reports about the Sony's idea of shelving the film or sending it directly to video were true, then that means they were willing to take a loss on the project anyway. So now they are suddenly worried about the bottom line and turning a profit on it? Doesn't make sense.

What's really happening is that Sony is afraid if they don't take drastic measures these groups that are offended by Kevin Spacey will boycott the studio's other products. This is over-the-top damage control and Spacey is wreckage on the side of the road now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He hasnt been charged with anything yet.........Wish we could cut DUMP out of our lives so easily for all HIS allegations.......

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

And how many others should be cut out of films for things they've done wrong in the past?

It's time for people to set aside the hypocritical moral judgments. Just focus on the story, the characters, the acting. Leave what happens off-camera out of it.

No morality judgements here. Its purely box office. People today will not support a film with that person in it. Maybe it will blow over and maybe it won't. This goes back to Fatty Arbuckle at the beginning of the film industry. Not much has changed on that . 

Once upon a time, Mel Gibson was on Hollywood's bad list for saying some things. Now, years later, he's in a family holiday film. Some make it back, others don't.

 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.  The reason to excise someone from a movie is not for any heinous crime they commit, like rape, or molestation, but the effect on the box office.  Care for any other crimes to be overlooked?  Mayhem?  Torture?  Murder?  If an actor's presence in movies is to be considered without regard to their conduct in their 'personal lives' (as if sexual assault can be classed with political views or their number of marriages), then I suppose snuff films would be acceptable viewing.  I'm sorry, but such an amoral attitude is a dish I am not able to keep down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

So.  The reason to excise someone from a movie is not for any heinous crime they commit, like rape, or molestation, but the effect on the box office.  Care for any other crimes to be overlooked?  Mayhem?  Torture?  Murder?  If an actor's presence in movies is to be considered without regard to their conduct in their 'personal lives' (as if sexual assault can be classed with political views or their number of marriages), then I suppose snuff films would be acceptable viewing.  I'm sorry, but such an amoral attitude is a dish I am not able to keep down.

The movie stars are paid an inordinate amount of money to act in movies. They're not paid this money because they are the best actors or actresses in the world or because they're the best looking people in the world or because they have the best character in the world.

The only reason they're paid this money is because millions of people all over the world will buy tickets at the movie box offices to see them in the movies.

 The movie audiences in the world decide who it is they want to see and who it is they're willing to give up their hard-earned dollars, euros,  £'s etc to support.

That's the way business works and that's the way the movies have always come down to.

 

Ingrid Bergman was thrown out of Hollywood because she left her husband and child and ran off with another man who she became pregnant by. She was ostracized from Hollywood because of her behavior. Ed Sullivan wouldn't allow her to appear  on his TV program. Furthermore, she was denounced by a senator on the floor of the US Senate.

 That was 1950 and she continued to make films in Europe until she was welcomed back by Hollywood and America in 1956 with an Oscar for Anastasia.

The public decides who is a movie star and for how long-- it's just that simple.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only view a person's minimization of an actor's (or director's) outrages as a self-serving rationalization for that person's convenience, so that they would not have to undergo the unpleasant effort of readjusting their evaluation of movies or actors they like.  Discounting them would involve a loss and leave a void in a person's panoply of film, not easily filled.  Nature and people loathe a vacuum.  Even worse is to retain an ambivalent appreciation of a movie, or career.  Nothing is settled.  Watching a movie like that always evokes competing emotions.  Roman Polanski committed a heinous crime, and deserves imprisonment for it.  He is also a great filmmaker.  Can the movies of a monster be unreservedly enjoyed?  Evidently some people can easily dismiss the crimes.  As I said, amorality is something hard for me to stomach.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

Roman Polanski committed a heinous crime, and deserves imprisonment for it.  He is also a great filmmaker.  Can the movies of a monster be unreservedly enjoyed?  Evidently some people can easily dismiss the crimes.  As I said, amorality is something hard for me to stomach.  

He can if he displays some awareness of his crime and shows repentance--
Roman Polanski directed "Tess", and turned Thomas Hardy's novel about the English class system into one long apology for what he did to Natassja Kinski.  Michael Jackson, OTOH, continued to make songs and music videos about why mean people were picking on him and couldn't just leave him alone with his happy world of kids.

...Which of the two would YOU parole?  Something about Spacey just makes you not want to put him on the first list, but that might just be a prejudice caused by his earlier films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now it seems LOUIS CK is in the cross hairs.  It's getting very crowded on the "He sexually assaulted me years ago" bandwagon.

How soon before we hear of some 40 something come out of the woodwork and accuse FRED ROGERS of once having "touched" her when she was 10 years old?  Oh, probably never, because he's not living anymore and there's no career to ruin there.

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us